Instead of focusing on a departure from what you are used to, have you stopped to consider that the gryphon is a reward from a war based campaign? To me, it looks like that Gryphon (and the Horde's Wyvern) have been war ravaged and survived encounters with the Sha energies.

As for the beak, it's far more likely that this Gryphon (and Wyvern with extra long horns and fangs) are simply a sub-species found on Pandaria (or one considered to be heartier and thus fit for this brutal battlefield). Differing sub-species often have differences in feathering, bone structure, or beak shape (to adapt to types of food). Comparing two different sub-species of a fantasy model to a singular sub-species of a real life source does it a disservice.

Something can be regal and war battered at the same time. I think the new gryphon looks plenty regal, but it also looks like its been to war and is still war ready. And demonic eyes? Slightly glowing blue eyes are demonic? *scratches head* If anything, they are more regal/angelic, while red/yellow would be demonic.

Also on the glowing eyes, more things with glowing eyes! Night elfs, worgen, draenaieiae, etc.

except the eyes are not glowing, as already mentioned, they just look dead and do not look like eyes at all >.<

Originally Posted by Runecapeman

I try not to post anywhere anymore, due to fear of being infracted. Feels like there are too many mods that aren't screened well enough. "Dirty cops" if you will.

I guess thats true. My mistake. But my point still stands. Plenty of beings in Warcraft have slightly to full glowing eyes. Why should gryphons be the exception?

Also, many animals have eyes that seem to glow(See reptiles) due to bright color or light refracting.

Because changing lore isn't a good thing (it becomes problematic, especially in defining what is or isn't an object). Which is why it's so good that these publishers/devs refer to D&D examples as some base idea of this type of lore. They are the origin of what we refer to as RPG.

Have to have references or it'll be a chaotic soup, not so much for variety/vanity, but of definitions itself. Why in the English language we have dictionaries be it from Merriam-Webster's to OED as authorities. Same goes for other specialties, from Chilton for mechanics; Wheeler for Orthopedics and onwards.

From the #1 Cata review on Amazon.com: "Blizzard's greatest misstep was blaming players instead of admitting their mistakes.
They've convinced half of the population that the other half are unskilled whiners, causing a permanent rift in the community."

except the eyes are not glowing, as already mentioned, they just look dead and do not look like eyes at all >.<

I was only calling them glowing because the OP wanted to call them glowing. Just was stating that even if they were, they aren't the only thing in WoW to have glowy eyes and whatnot.

Originally Posted by Brytryne

I don't mean to side with this guy but I think his point is the old version doesn't have glowing eyes and since the new one has I guess it lacks consistency. Assuming of curse that 1) it doesn't matter since it's a cartoony fantasy game and 2) they are two different kinds of gryphons aren't valid points.

Yeah I get that. I'm just assuming that they are a different gryphon since they are a separate mount, not one that is replacing the older version. If it was replacing it, then I'd get the anger and confusion and inconsistency. But alas, it's not a replacement so it doesn't have to follow the same formula, much like the dozens of other creatures that have gotten upgraded models(wolves, tigers, NPCs, etc).

---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 12:47 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Kevyne-Shandris

Because changing lore isn't a good thing (it becomes problematic, especially in defining what is or isn't an object). Which is why it's so good that these publishers/devs refer to D&D examples as some base idea of this type of lore. They are the origin of what we refer to as RPG.

Have to have references or it'll be a chaotic soup, not so much for variety/vanity, but of definitions itself. Why in the English language we have dictionaries be it from Merriam-Webster's to OED as authorities. Same goes for other specialties, from Chilton for mechanics; Wheeler for Orthopedics and onwards.

But lore is like history. It's stuff we know about the past and present. Lore is changed and added onto as new things are discovered or old things change. Such as evolution, or a new species of gryphon.

Plus, is there even lore on the exact description of a World of Warcraft style gryphon? I know there is the concept art, but as far as I'm concerned, thats not lore, thats just a concept.

Edit: As for the helping to define what is and isn't an object.. think of it like this. Old gryphon=American Crocodile, new gryphon=Nile Crocodile. Both are crocodiles, but that have variances. They both follow the same basic structure(how DNA defines them). Same goes for the gryphons. They are both gryphons, they both have their differences, and at their core, they follow the same lore(as far as I know, again, if you have direct information on their looks, Id love to read it).

Because a gryphon is a mix between an eagle head/wings and a lion body. That's the definition of a gryphon and Blizzard is calling them gryphons and they looked like that since Warcraft 1. Now they changed it without good reason.

And to add on to what you're saying, the new gryphon is still a gryphon. Eagle head, front arms, and wings. Lion backside. Also, most original arts and descriptions of gryphons have them with ears. So they already broke that mold. But the new mold they have they still followed. And if changing eye color is such a drastic change to the mold, changing the feather/skin color of the gryphon is too(Snowy/Ebon gryphons?).

New model is fine, though I'm fond of the old one too. It's not dirty it just has a more muted colour palette.

I mean, look at the old Horde wind rider model! Count your lucky stars! The new one is pretty cool... bit long and skinny though.

Originally Posted by Trassk

Hey, you alliance wanted your faction to be more dark and dirty and doing bad stuff, you got it, so don't try handing it back now.

I thought you were an orc not a troll!

---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 01:58 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Urufu

Wyvern:
Wyvern
You were saying?

IKR... it's a Manticore!

Why not call them Manticores? Manticore is an awesome word. Manticore.

Originally Posted by Kryos

Compare it with the picture of a real bald eagle and tell me what head looks more realistic...

Gryphons are a mythological beast which feature in Ancient Egyptian and Persian art as far back as like 3,000 BC. Bald eagles were discovered by European explorers in 1766. So I don't think they have the heads of bald eagles.

Also, IT'S A CARTOON GRYPHON how much real biology do you want to invoke here?

Originally Posted by Kryos

Because a gryphon is a mix between an eagle head/wings and a lion body. That's the definition of a gryphon and Blizzard is calling them gryphons and they looked like that since Warcraft 1. Now they changed it without good reason.

And to add on to what you're saying, the new gryphon is still a gryphon. Eagle head, front arms, and wings. Lion backside. Also, most original arts and descriptions of gryphons have them with ears. So they already broke that mold. But the new mold they have they still followed. And if changing eye color is such a drastic change to the mold, changing the feather/skin color of the gryphon is too(Snowy/Ebon gryphons?).

That is true about the ears, but not true about plummage (that's like saying different color hair/eyes/skin = different species).

From the #1 Cata review on Amazon.com: "Blizzard's greatest misstep was blaming players instead of admitting their mistakes.
They've convinced half of the population that the other half are unskilled whiners, causing a permanent rift in the community."

Oh, not trying to say different eye/plummage color means different species(though color[in a sense] can be enough to seperate them into different species since its highly likely that the color of whatever creature is due to the environment they live in[white for snowy region, etc]. Many lizards and snakes are extremely similar is size and shape, but differ in color/pattern due to their environment). I was just saying they're already changed the mold, so saying they have to stick to the "classic griffin" mold is a poor reason.